Karnataka High Court
Shri. Manjunath Urban Co-Op Credit … vs Sri. Mahaveer S/O Nemanna Hatti on 4 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385
CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101866 OF 2021
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MANJUNATH URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,
R/BY.PETITIONER NO.2
NEAR CHAWADI, AT POST: TERDAL,
TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. SRI. SHRIDHAR S/O. MAHADEVAPPA SHIVAPUJI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN NO.1 SOCIETY
DEVARAJ NAGAR, AT POST: TERDAL,
TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
3. SRI. BASAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA HADPAD,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE
AND SERVICE NO.1 SOCIETY,
AT POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S 4. SRI. ANAND S/O. SHANKRAPA UPPIN,
HARIHAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN NO.1 SOCIETY
Location: High
Court of AT POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
5. SRI. VENKATESH S/O. VITTHAL PUJARI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
POST: TERDAL TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
6. SRI. MOHAN S/O. VITTHAL PATTAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
7. SRI. PARAPPA S/O. MAHALINGAPPA KUMBAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
8. SRI. BASANGOUDA S/O. SHIVANGOUDA KALBURGI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385
CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021
HC-KAR
POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
9. SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. PARAPPA KALLOLLI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
10. SRI. GANAPATI S/O. LAXMAN GADIWADDAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
POST: TERDAL, TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
11. SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. MAHALINGAPPA KUMBHAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
PERMANENT R/O. AT POST: TERDAL,
TAL. JHAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT,
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT SHIVAMRESI,
F-NO201, SEC.13, SPINE RIADM CHIKHALI,
OPP JAGUAR LANDROVER COMPANY, PUNE - 411 019.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. NAGARATNA S. PATTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MAHAVEER S/O. NEMANNA HATTI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. NEAR MINORITY BANK, YALLAMMANA TEMPLE,
TAL. JHAMKHANDI AND DIST. BAGALKOT.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BANAHATTI POLICE,
R/B. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R2;
SHRI VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C, SEEKING
TO BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/NO.1 TO 11/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 8 AND
11, 12 AND 14 MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED IN C.C. NO.(645/2018)
RENUMBERED AS 91/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S.403, 409, 417, 418, 420, 426, 464, 465, 468, 477-
A R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385
CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the entire
proceedings in Criminal Case No.645 of 2018 (renumbered as
91 of 2020) arising out of P. C. No.115 of 2017 on the file of
the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class
Court, Banahatti, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 403, 409, 417, 418, 420, 426, 464, 465, 468 and
477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that
respondent No.1/complainant filed a private complaint in P.C.
No.115 of 2017 against the petitioners alleging that he
borrowed a loan of Rs.30,000/- from petitioner No.1 Society on
03.09.2007 and returned the entire amount on 19.02.2009
along with the interest. However, the Society has created false
loan documents as if the complainant raised a loan from
Society on 21.12.2009 and the Society is unnecessarily
harassing the complainant by misusing the documents
submitted by the complainant on previous loan transactions.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385
CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021
HC-KAR
Hence, the complainant filed the private complaint. Soon after
initiation of the private complaint, the learned Magistrate
instead of referring the matter to the jurisdictional Police under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he
chooses to inquire into the matter himself. Hence, taking
exception to the same, the petitioners have filed this petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-
State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that
there is no case against the petitioners and they are not
involved in the alleged offences. Further, the complainant has
not disputed the loan borrowed by him from the Society,
Execution Petition filed against him for recovery of loan amount
and the arbitration award passed by the Arbitrator. Now, in
order to harass the petitioners, the complainant has filed a
false complaint. Hence, he prays to allow the petition and
quash the entire proceedings.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385
CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021
HC-KAR
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have contented
that the trial Court has framed charges against the petitioners
and the matter is set down for evidence. Now, the petitioners
are disputing the question of fact and the same cannot be gone
into by this Court in petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, they pray to dismiss the
petition.
6. Perused the entire material on record. As per the
complaint, the complainant made allegations against all the
petitioners alleging that they created false loan documents as if
the complainant borrowed loan from the Society and hence,
false Execution Petition also filed against the complainant for
recovery of loan amount. In this case, the alleged offences are
cognizable in nature. Now, the petitioners are disputing the
question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. At this stage, only prima-facie case has to be seen and
similar ratio is laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of M/S. NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8385
CRL.P No. 101866 of 2021
HC-KAR
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in AIR
2021 SC 1918.
7. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
MINAKSHI BALA v. SUDHIR KUMAR AND OTHERS reported
in (1994) 4 SCC 142 has held that ‘if charges are framed
under Section 240 or 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973, based on a prima-facie case, the High Courts must
exercise caution and restraint when considering a plea to quash
the proceedings against the accused’.
In the instant case, the cognizable offences are made out.
Hence, there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the
criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
[ad_1]
Source link